pemerton said:
Whether or not this is true in some abstract sense, it doesn't really seem apposite to the particular discussion - namely, there is no reason why the game can't support the sort of variety @Starfox , I and others have mentioned: some casters using staves, some using words of power, some using bags of weird components, etc. That does not require "multiple magic systems". It just requires a sidebar. Burning Wheel even gives an example of text for such a sidebar (though I'm sure WotC are up to doing this without cribbing).
It seems very germane to the discussion; the game can support a variety of magic system, or can allow for tweaking of a system (both of which, you'll notice, I mentioned in my previous post; your sidebar idea falls under the "tweaking" part), but absent those things it's going to be making a statement about what magic can or can't do via the rules it lays down, regardless of how open it is.
pemerton said:
Why would you state such things? The whole point of a sidebar is to leave those things open.
The point I'm making is that you seem to be saying that magic isn't being portrayed in the manner you prefer; I'm broadening the discussion from "components" to all methods of portrayal to point out that no matter what's done in that regard, it's probably going to leave somebody out in the proverbial cold.
pemerton said:
B/X didn't say much about how magic worked. Nor did Gygax's AD&D, other than making vague references to the positive and negative material planes. I don't see why most of this stuff can't be worked out by a group in the context of it's own play. Or, again, sidebars (which is what, in effect, Gygax's referene to the energy planes amounts to) can offer examples.
It said a lot about how magic worked, in that it used the Vancian system - if you wanted to cast spells a la Merlin from Disney's
The Sword in the Stone, you were probably going to be disappointed. Rules lay down what magic can and can't do, and the latter will invariably rule out some things that people think should be there. Tweaks can help broaden the applicability, though.
Neonchameleon said:
These two parts are not connected. Magic may not have universal applicability (and won't if you go for a Vancian model) but that doesn't mean that you can't make it loose or tight.
I'm not talking about loose or tight, though. I'm saying that complaining about the nature of the magic system as not being how you prefer is something of a futile debate (beyond the issue of simply stating that you wished that the game catered to your existing preferences) because there's any number of ways that magic has been portrayed, and so no matter what's presented, it's going to not be what someone wanted.
Neonchameleon said:
A loose system would be one where you have a Vancian casting model but the V/S/M aspects are left entirely to a sidebar. A tight and hard to drift one would be where you hardcode the material components and gestures.
I don't have a problem with that, save that I'd reverse it to have the components in the written rules, and the "leave them out" option in a sidebar. That's because it's easier to say "we're not using components" than it is to write down a list of components for several dozen spells.
Neonchameleon said:
And if you leave the material components in the sidebar there can be a very good justification for pun components. That justification is that the components are something to focus the mind and that the puns associate the spells. This also allows players to come up with their own puns (always more rewarding) rather than stick with the IMO bad jokes that Gygax and co created. This has all the advantages of pun components plus a few. And so far as I can see none of the disadvantages.
The issue of justification is a personal one; plenty of people don't see any disadvantages with the system as it is now, puns and all.
Neonchameleon said:
And who is saying that? What's being said is that hard coded material components are annoying and limiting. And that mandating one way or the other comes with problems.
You're saying that, in that it's a singular example of the "magic isn't working the way I think it should work" argument. Every rule system is going to be a "mandate" that comes with problems to someone. That can't be avoided, which means that this issue is one of personal preference more than anything being objectively disadvantageous with the existing rules.